Oppenheimer

[mhardy6647]

Teller was always the more interesting character

He didn't come across too well in Dark Sun (at least, in my recollection).

 

[Prana Ferox]

He didn't come across too well in Dark Sun (at least, in my recollection).

Oh I don't mean he'd come across well. He was a classic mad scientist, most people would consider him a lunatic.

The scientist Edward Teller, according to one account, kept a blackboard in his office at Los Alamos during World War II with a list of hypothetical nuclear weapons on it. The last item on his list was the largest one he could imagine. The method of “delivery” — weapon-designer jargon for how you get your bomb from here to there, the target — was listed as “Backyard.” As the scientist who related this anecdote explained, “since that particular design would probably kill everyone on Earth, there was no use carting it anywhere.”

If that wouldn't make for a good story, I don't know what would.

 

[Dialectic]

I'll suggest a read for those interested:

The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes.

There's a continuation of sorts, Dark Sun, looking at the thermonuclear bomb, but I didn't find it as compelling.

Both on my shelf waiting to be read.

Relatedly, I recommend The Man from the Future by Ananyo Bhattacharya, a biography of Johnny von Neumann.

 

[Zgrado1970]

The movie was fine. A bit disappointing for me after having read the book on which the screenplay is based (“American Prometheus” by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Both on my shelf waiting to be read.

Relatedly, I recommend The Man from the Future by Ananyo Bhattacharya, a biography of Johnny von Neumann.

von Neumann was really something. Don't know if you could make a good movie of it. That is an excellent book on him. He was the fellow who modeled the explosive lens used in the 2nd atomic bomb. It used layers of fast and slow explosives in a somewhat petal shape to precisely squeeze the plutonium sphere within about 1 millionth of a second.

I went to college with a nephew of his.

 

[MCH]

oppie is one movie , given nolan soundtrack of muffled mumbling dialog with LR music effects drowning out audio frequency masking centre channel , its one movie i will never buy or even rent , i have bundle of his past movies with dreadful LCR mixing
also subject matter , don't care for it ,

sure i have other movies on disc and tape that have same " atomic theme " with

the spy who loved me
the terminator
terminator 2
terminator 3
terminator 4
by dawn's early light
crimson tide
armageddon
deep impact
godzilla
shadow makers ( fat man and little boy )
indiana jones and kingdom skull ( no i certainly do not watch it anymore )
aliens ( i say we nuke it from orbit )
octopussy
goldeneye
back to the future
batman , dark knight rises 3
the hunt for red october
k19
the abyss
empire of the sun
the andromeda strain
rocky IV
wolverine
red dawn
13 days
broken arrow
superman the movie
superman iv
the peacemaker
the final countdown
jfk
earthquake
mission impossible fallout

all the above ^ in some way has a nuclear atomic theme in the story or plot with word reference being mentioned , nuclear or atomic , shall i go on ?

sort of thinking , star wars 77 does it has a destructive power which maybe not matched to the same as single atomic bomb

i'm just simply not into , nolan movies anymore , nolan has mentioned before that he doesn't like surround sound , then why does he even bother mixing in 5.1 ? why not mix with just LCR no surround and no LFE.1 , dolby digital can be mixed and encoded that way

Dr. Strangelove?
The ultimate atomic bomb film.

 

[Dialectic]

I went to college with a nephew of his.

Bet he was smart.

 

[Timcognito]

I liked Dunkirk; the panoramic scenes, air combat over the water with ships going under and the plot on the ground was subtle and easy to follow. Maybe I was caught up in all that and didn't notice the muffled dialog.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Bet he was smart.

He was, but I seem to recall he was related via one of von Neumann's wives.

 

[Veri]

I liked Dunkirk; the panoramic scenes, air combat over the water with ships going under and the plot on the ground was subtle and easy to follow. Maybe I was caught up in all that and didn't notice the muffled dialog.

I liked Dunkirk too. Not a watch again and again movie but I liked it! Good cinema

 

[Andysu]

muffled mumbling dialogue is all i can hear is unintelligible dialog , blaring music ,

 

[Andysu]

this one sounds like different person recording the sound also i see what appears lapanese subtitles

 

[Herbert]

Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!

• The novel "mysticism" of quantum physics and then nuclear research, the wonder and awe associated with these topics fell flat for me because there was not enough depth. I absolutely loved the visualizations of atoms and energy waves, and how Oppenheimer was obsessing over those…but it never was truly fleshed out and disappeared after the first act.
• Character development and inter-character conflict were done poorly I thought. IMHO Nolan doesn't know how to portray human emotions*. It's all seen through binoculars or a microscope in his movies. You never feel you're actually close to the human being. Even the most emotional moments and subjective reality scenes felt dishonest.
• Political drama felt heavy handed and cheesy at times. I'd rather watch Oliver Stone, he captures these complexities with grit and way more passion.
• The film is too long and the structure is unnecessarily complicated. I think the whole black-and-white storyline could have been cut out because its conclusion was super cheesy.
• Why was it shot in IMAX? Definitely not for the visual appeal, the film has very little spectacle in it. And despite the technique, I thought the test scene was less impactful than let's say the oil rig explosion in "There will be Blood".
• I loved some performances (Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck) but also felt that many actors played themselves or brought too much flavor from their previous work (Cillian Murphy [although he did his best]; Ben Affleck Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr. were pretty unwatchable with their signature smirks).
• I did not enjoy the music and its direction. Music itself was disjointed and without character. And the direction…I felt annoyed and kind of insulted that almost every second of the movie was filled with music telling me how to feel.
• Thankfully dialogue mix was not as bad as in "Tenet".

All in all, it felt like a waste of a big budget and talent pool. It felt like a huge, late baroque painting -- copying styles and themes of the old masters, attempting to show everything and from every angle, but ultimately hollow and shouty. Such a story could have been done in a much more intimate manner. I don't think Nolan has the self-awareness to learn how to get "closer" to humans in his movies…so I hope he goes back to making action or sci-fi films.

* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.

Great writeup! Especially that Lewis Strauss opposes Oppie (sounds good) just because he might have said something to Einstein and joked indirectly during a hearing about Strauss is extremely cheesy. Wasn‘t the „Super“ and the arms race enough as a motivation? It is just scripting by the book, the Einstein-Scene abused as a plot device.
I simply wasn‘t emotionally taken.
One scene during his hearing ( (who saw it knows which one) is ridiculous. Nolans obsession with analog 65mm is the same what die-hard vinyl fans show. There are some color scenes where the highlight in the faces blow out, with very high contrast. Probably they used a wrong / too fast film stock. (Stock was Kodak, ranging from 50 to at least 250) Some sunny Berkeley/ Princeton scenes show it.
This would not happen with digital and many film cameras available during the time of shooting are on par with the dynamic range of film, the latest ARRI even surpasses it. You also watch Oppenheimer and think: Where did all the money go?

 

[Pe8er]

There are some color scenes where the highlight in the faces blow out, with very high contrast. Probably they used a wrong / too fast film stock. (Stock was Kodak, ranging from 50 to at least 250) Some sunny Berkeley/ Princeton scenes show it.
This would not happen with digital and many film cameras available during the time of shooting are on par with the dynamic range of film, the latest ARRI even surpasses it.

Wow! I didn't notice issues with contrast and frankly I have a hard time believing they would be in the source material...sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, it's just hard to reconcile that Hoyte van Hoytema would make a mistake like that! Maybe the projector in your cinema wasn't calibrated properly? I will definitely look for it the next time I watch this film.

Speaking of technical issues: I saw many shots that were slightly out of focus and it did not feel like an artistic device. Apparently it's super hard to focus close-up shots on IMAX cameras.

 

[holdingpants01]

I liked the performance of Matt Damon but that's about it. This story would work better split in 3 parts, or as a series. Sound was annoying with many jump scares, the music sounded like it supposed to be Hans Zimmer but he didn't fit the budget. Regardless, it's a very good year for Hollywood movies (not so for writers and actors), Barbie, Asteroid City, Oppenheimer, Dungeons & Dragons (also Mission Impossible is supposed to be good but haven't seen it) and there's still at least two to come which I have high hopes for: Killers of the Flower Moon which is incredible story in a rather bland book and should work amazing in a movie, and of course Dune 2.

 

[Herbert]

Wow! I didn't notice issues with contrast and frankly I have a hard time believing they would be in the source material...sorry, I don't mean to be contentious, it's just hard to reconcile that Hoyte van Hoytema would make a mistake like that! Maybe the projector in your cinema wasn't calibrated properly? I will definitely look for it the next time I watch this film.

Speaking of technical issues: I saw many shots that were slightly out of focus and it did not feel like an artistic device. Apparently it's super hard to focus close-up shots on IMAX cameras.

Hoyte van Houtema would not be responsible for choosing the wrong film stock that day. Don’t forget, with film you do not see what you get, until it is developed.
Just a Video-playout. With digital, you can. Choosing the stock for the day is planned in advance. Could also be the lab or a bad batch. (In the Eastern Block, cameramen tried to get the middle of a film batch, as quality of the chemicals was bad but ok in the middle if the processing) You won’t go back and reshoot „on location“, like Berkeley, too expensive, and only because of grain and less contrast. When it us copletely ruined, the insurance might cover the extra day. In the U.S., the DOP is also not allowed to operate the cam because of union rules. The DOP is responsible for lightning and deciding the perspective of the shot. In Europe, the DOP also operates the cam (but does not load it) , as to be seen in Dunkirk.
Michael Ballhaus hated this union rule and had his son Florian operate the cam. About being out of focus: Downside of 65mm, the field of sharpness has a very tight margin.
Also annoying: There are close ups of Cilian Murphy where one can clearly see the scars of his earrings.

 

[Zim]

Such a disappointing film that was more about the spectacle rather than the story itself, just like his past two films. Nolan's best films (IMO) are the ones where he collaborated with his brother Jonathan, with the exception of Inception. Jonathan seems to bring the heart and soul to the characters, allowing viewers to have an emotional connection with them while having a story to tell in the films. Christopher alone just produces.. Soulless visual and aural loudness nowadays. IMO.

 

[r042wal]

Just got out of the cinema and boy I'm so glad it's over. Overall, I'm not buying it. Some "hot takes"!

• The novel "mysticism" of quantum physics and then nuclear research, the wonder and awe associated with these topics fell flat for me because there was not enough depth. I absolutely loved the visualizations of atoms and energy waves, and how Oppenheimer was obsessing over those…but it never was truly fleshed out and disappeared after the first act.
• Character development and inter-character conflict were done poorly I thought. IMHO Nolan doesn't know how to portray human emotions*. It's all seen through binoculars or a microscope in his movies. You never feel you're actually close to the human being. Even the most emotional moments and subjective reality scenes felt dishonest.
• Political drama felt heavy handed and cheesy at times. I'd rather watch Oliver Stone, he captures these complexities with grit and way more passion.
• The film is too long and the structure is unnecessarily complicated. I think the whole black-and-white storyline could have been cut out because its conclusion was super cheesy.
• Why was it shot in IMAX? Definitely not for the visual appeal, the film has very little spectacle in it. And despite the technique, I thought the test scene was less impactful than let's say the oil rig explosion in "There will be Blood".
• I loved some performances (Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck) but also felt that many actors played themselves or brought too much flavor from their previous work (Cillian Murphy [although he did his best]; Ben Affleck Matt Damon and Robert Downey Jr. were pretty unwatchable with their signature smirks).
• I did not enjoy the music and its direction. Music itself was disjointed and without character. And the direction…I felt annoyed and kind of insulted that almost every second of the movie was filled with music telling me how to feel.
• Thankfully dialogue mix was not as bad as in "Tenet".

All in all, it felt like a waste of a big budget and talent pool. It felt like a huge, late baroque painting -- copying styles and themes of the old masters, attempting to show everything and from every angle, but ultimately hollow and shouty. Such a story could have been done in a much more intimate manner. I don't think Nolan has the self-awareness to learn how to get "closer" to humans in his movies…so I hope he goes back to making action or sci-fi films.

* One memorable exception is McConaughey in "Interstellar", although I believe that happened despite Nolan and because of McConaughey's skill and style.

I fully agree. We walked out after 1hr 15 min. I am so familiar with Oppenheimer, the Trinity project, and the subsequent politics of the communist party in the era. I found the continuity of the film difficult to digest.

Maybe I should go see Barbie.

 

[TonyJZX]

To me I already went thru this... it feels like well trodden territory

Manhattan (TV Series 2014–2015) ⭐ 7.7 | Drama, History, War

| TV-14

www.imdb.com

I watched this entire series and it felt like a thorough telling as it is.

I dont think you can do better.

 

[JaccoW]

Bunch of sourpusses here but to each their own. I watched the 70mm film version last weekend and enjoyed it a lot. It's just 3 hours of constantly building tension but luckily my theatre had an intermission halfway through. The 70mm version is sold out in my little theatre for the next couple of weeks, with people coming in from all over the country.

Then again, this is the kind of arthouse cinema that attracts a certain kind of movie nerds so getting to look in the projectionists cabin afterwards was really cool.

I'm glad to see the movie passed the $650 million global box office line a couple of days ago. That means we get more Christopher Nolan movies in the future.

I'll definitely buy it when it comes out on 4k Blu-Ray.



Here is some Interstellar Main theme cover on marimba: